A Quick Reference to the Problems with Setterfield's c-Decay Claims
Here's a quick guide to just some of the problems
inherent in Barry Setterfield's c-Decay claims. Some of these items are
already covered in detail in the document available on the main c-decay page. Others are under development for future release(s).
No complete dataset of speed-of-light vs. time is available.
Searching his site, he presents, at best, sparsely sampled
points and partial functions of this import quantity - nothing that
definitively covers the values from the time of creation to the present
day. He claims both quantization and 'oscillations' in the values, yet
I've found none of these clearly represented in his functional forms or
data tables. Attempts to reconcile the 'datasets' he does provide
generates bizarre and inconsistent results.
Intrinsic Redshifts and/or Propagation Redshifts?
Setterfield never clearly delineates which part of his
claimed redshift is due to an intrinsic change in the emission
properties of the source and which part is due to the differential
arrival time of the propagating photons. He seems to invoke a mystical it just happens that way mechanism based on a single function of dynamical time. There is no experimental justification for such a model.
Ignores Propagation Effects due to changing speed of Light
Consider Car 1 leaves Point A at some speed that is slowly
decreasing and Car 2 leaves the same Point A an hour later, always
travelling slower than Car 1. Will they arrive at Point B an hour
apart? No. Photons, either as wave or quanta, still obey this principle
(that's how we measure the speed of light). This differential
arrival time can be precisely calculated for any variation of speed
with time. Setterfield defines a uniform dynamical timescale which
would readily distinguish lightspeed propagation changes from intrinsic
emission source changes, but invokes it whenever it suits him, not in a
physically consistent manner, and inconsistent with observations.
The Bohr Model only worked for a limited case of
2-body systems, yet Setterfield applies it to the cosmos which is
considerably more than a 2-body system. He does this with no experimental justification. Contrary to Setterfield's claim, wave mechanics is not
a 'refinement' of the Bohr Model, it totally replaces the Bohr Model
and has far better agreement with experiment across a larger variety of
Between Equations 108 and 110, Setterfield changes the definition of his variable, x. Does he realize what the physics
implications of this are? In fact, they generate physically
inconsistent results and are inconsistent with other claims on the same
Setterfield's relationship, c = k z, suggests either that the
speed of light must be zero today (since z close to the Earth must be
zero for regular Doppler effects to dominate), or that z is non-zero
close to the Earth (since the speed of light is still finite at the
Earth)! This equation is inconsistent with observations. He tries to
'quantum jump' the problems away, but where does it link to any
A Plethora of Free-Parameters
It appears that whenever Setterfield's 'theory' gets into
trouble, he tosses in another free parameter. These are done in a way
that generates mathematical and physical inconsistences (such as with
equations 108 and 110 mentioned above). This makes Setterfield's theory
ad hoc, and therefore useless since it has no predictive power to test.
General Sloppy Presentation
Due to the rather inconsistent organization of
Setterfield's site, it is virtually impossible to track the 'progress'
of this alledged theory. It is extremely difficult to find relevant
data (such as details of his c vs. time function) without slogging
through a bunch of improperly HTMLized mathematics. This is inexcusable
in an era with numerous Open Source and free software tools available
which can properly typeset mathematics. If I were peer-reviewing this
site for usability by the scientific community, it would not pass.